P.S. "None" is a singular pronoun which should be followed by a singular verb: such is the rule of grammar and commonsense.
Grammar and commonsense are violated daily in this regard by the b*st*rd*s*t**n of the noble English language as captive of feminist thought, if we may dignify those processes with that noun.
Because the singular masculine personal pronon "he" as standing for "man" as in "mankind" is repugnant to the feminist "thinker", these "thinkers" have insisted on finding a substitute. They have lit on "they", which is plural in number, but common in form to the masculine and feminine genders, to use that word correctly for once.
This has received not only common (as Alas! even among many PPRuNers) but official (as, even more Alas! in Canadian statutory) form. The latest version of, for example, the Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44, as amended, contemplates at, for example, subsection 60(1) a singular subject "the purchaser" for whom the pronoun four lines later is the plural "their". It should be "he".
This is a permanent confession of shame on the parts of the Chief Legislative Draftsman (or Draftsperson) and the Parliament of Canada.
Another often seen mistake (or heard) is the phrase, "The team are travelling ....." That should be, "The team is travelling ..." the plural would be correct only if there were several teams, e.g."The teams were travelling."
Fully paid up member of the spelling and grammar police.
Seems to be a "two countries separated by a common language" issue here. I noticed immediately, and have since come round to, the American way of addressing plural/singular items especially with respect to company names.
UK: "Time Warner have announced blah blah blah..." US: "Time Warner has announced blah blah blah..."
The company is singular not plural and so "has" is correct, "have" is wrong.